MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281390533 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000001181

Transient Global Amnesia Recurrence

2022· article· en· W4281390533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Micaela A Hernández, Julieta Arena, Lucas Alessandro, Ricardo Allegri, Ismael Luis Calandri

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransient global amnesiaMigraineOdds ratioDepression (economics)Observational studyConfidence intervalAmnesiaMeta-analysisCohort studyInternal medicineCohortPsychiatryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Transient global amnesia (TGA) is an acute amnestic disorder with unclear pathophysiology. Although considered a benign phenomenon, the possibility of a recurrence is a major concern for the patient. Our objective is to identify the prevalence and risk factors of relapse to help clinicians counsel patients about it. Methods: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidance, we screened 1,658 studies from MEDLINE, Lilacs, and Embase databases, published from 1985 to April 2021, in English or Spanish. We included 36 observational case-control and cohort studies that included patients with TGA according to the Caplan or Hodges and Warlow diagnostic criteria. We performed a meta-analysis with a random effect model for proportions and calculation of odds ratio (OR) for identified risk factors. Methodological quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: = 0.0288, respectively). Discussion: The analysis showed that approximately 1 of 8 participants may experience recurrence, with an increased risk in the case of a history or current state of migraine, depression, or sexual intercourse before the event. A personal history of migraine and depression was associated with 2 and 4 times risk, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Clinical PracticeSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207